Upon advice of his attorney, Treasurer Dan Rutherford is refusing to release a taxpayer-funded report probing allegations he sexually harassed an employee and forced the state worker to do his political bidding. Days since the investigation’s completion, Rutherford, who is running for the Republican nomination for Illinois governor, says he has yet to read it.

Listen to this exchange as journalists press him on whether the findings should be made public.

* Listen to the whole thing…

Man, that sure didn’t go well for Rutherford. If he thinks this is going away, he’s dead wrong.

Lawyers can advise their clients all they want, but clients can still do whatever they want to do. BTW, there is no Federal Rule that would prohibit Rutherford from releasing the report. Andjelkovich is full of it.

We paid for it, and there’s no legitmate reason such as national security or something preventing us from seeing it. He was probably gonna be my guy in this race, but no way now. He is dead wrong on this, and it only gives the impression that he has something to hide. (On the other hand, if it clears him it would be viewed as a whitewash.) As an attorney, I also don’t understand his attorney’s advice to keep it confidential as it will come out in the lawsuit for sure eventually. Rutherford should just drop out. No way he can save this politically or otherwise in the month before the primary, and maybe not ever.

I don’t think one reporter asked if he read an Executive Summary. They ask if he has read the “report,” to which he can honestly say no. The female reporter asked if had read a “briefing” I believe, but he was talking over her and she didn’t pursue the question further. I think if he were asked about the Executive Summary or briefing or whatever, it might illicit more information than his denials.

Rutherford has been in public life for quite some time. He should be perfectly capable of deciding on his own whether to follow the advice of his attorneys or the advice of his media people/campaign manager.

Maybe he knows he won’t be governor and now wants to do what he can to avoid anything more serious?

I wonder if this investigation is subject to FOIA (with names redacted) since it was paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Perhaps I missed it, but why hasn’t anyone asked Rutherford about his duty and obligation to read the report? An Executive Officer should not be able to ignore a report that details an internal investigation regarding allegations of sexual harassment and improper political pressure within his own office. In my opinion, that would be, at best, a dereliction of his duties.
Moreover, by admitting that he has not read the report, doesn’t Rutherford give his legal and political opponents the opportunity to argue that he is not concerned about harassment in his office? All very questionable.

There is absolutely no legal, political, moral or logical reason for Dan to have not read the report.

If I would have been accused of doing things which I strenuously deny and which threatened to derail my campaign and tarnish my reputation and irreparably damage my career in public service and which I suggested, if not believed, were trumped up by my opponent and I ordered up an internal investigation at the taxpayer’s expense, then I couldn’t wait to READ, let alone release the report which would certainly exonerate me and expose the accuser as having made unsubstantiated slanderous charges against me.

If he doesn’t read the report, then it is not a final report. Therefore the reports stays in “draft” status possibly not subject to public release via FOIA requirements. That is my best guess as to why he won’t read or review it.

“Anon” regarding the Executive Summary is dead on. Rutherform is a master at parsing words, and he’s doing it here. It’s unfortunate that these reporters let him get away with it. If only one had said, “Just because you say you haven’t read it doesn’t mean you do not know the significant points of information in the report. Has any of your counsel advised you in any manner as to any content contained in the report paid for by taxpayers.”

The burning toast caught the toaster on fire, which got the house to burn down. What horrible responses to the reporters.

At the end, a female reporter was trying to get answers to the question that I have about his legal representation. Since he’s being sued in his official capacity, I thought the AG had to represent or authorize alternative counsel. Unless I’m misunderstanding the process, we haven’t heard any discussion from or with Lisa.

To echo Rufus and others, I hope someone can FOIA this report. It’s impossible to believe not releasing it would be better than releasing it, but the only logical conclusion is that it comes down hard on Rutherford.

After all, it’s supposed to be an “independent, internal investigation” conducted by the State (not Rutherford personally).

If would seem that if he has access to it, the same rules would apply to the Plaintiff, and possibly even those who were interviewed. It all depends on how the report is viewed within the context of funding, the “internal investigation,” and the lawsuit.

Sadly Dan’s “cover up” started years ago (probably when he was a child), and is just now culminating in his political downfall. Transparency is always better than concealment. He wants to head a $35 billion dollar enterprise, but because of his failure to level with us he is vulnerable to the worst kind of coercion and blackmail.

The whole issue of him using public money to finance an investigation, then giving the report to his PERSONAL attorney is just mind boggling to me. He clearly can not differentiate between his personal/campaign life and responsibility as Treasurer.